CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 20 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic }     783 20.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision Appel-Irrgang v. Germany (application no. 45216/07 )   APPLICATION CONCERNING THE OBLIGATION TO ATTEND ETHICS CLASSES IN SCHOOL INADMISSIBLE     Principal facts   The applicants, Johanna Appel-Irrgang and her parents, Kerstin Appel and Ronald Irrgang, are German nationals who were born in 1993, 1956 and 1954 respectively and live in Berlin. They disagreed with a law modifying the Berlin School Act, which took effect in August 2006 and which made it mandatory for pupils of grade 7 to 10 to attend ethics classes in school, because the instruction’s secular character would be contrary to their Protestant belief. They lodged a constitutional complaint against the law with the Federal Constitutional Court in April 2006, which was declared inadmissible in July 2006 for non-exhaustion of the legal remedies.   Following this decision, the applicants requested the school to exempt the first applicant from attending ethics classes and brought expedited proceedings before the Berlin Administrative Court with the aim of obtaining a preliminary exemption. In August 2006 the court rejected the request, finding that the applicants had not given a valid reason that would justify a complete exemption and that mandatory ethics classes were not in breach of the German Basic Law. The decision was upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal in November 2006. In March 2007 a second constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants against the law was rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), the applicants complained of the first applicant’s obligation to attend ethics classes, which they considered contrary to the state’s obligation of religious neutrality. They claimed that the state supervision of the school system prescribed by the Basic Law of Germany did not constitute a necessary limitation of the freedom of religion in the sense of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention. They also invoked Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right of parents to ensure education in conformity with their religious convictions). The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 October 2007.   The decision was given by a Chamber composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President, Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) Zdravka Kalaydjieva ( Bulgaria), judges,   and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court held that the applicants’ complaints had to be considered principally in the light of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It pointed out that defining the school curriculum fell within the competence of the Contracting States, which had to make sure it did not pursue any ideological objectives disrespectful of parents’ religious or philosophical convictions.   Regarding the applicants’ claims that the ethics classes were not neutral, the Court observed that according to the relevant provisions of the Berlin School Act, the ethics classes’ aim was to examine fundamental questions of ethics independently of pupils’ cultural, ethnic and religious origins and that the classes were therefore in conformity with the principles of pluralism and objectiveness established by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The Court referred to the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision which had noted that, according to the curriculum of the ethics classes, teachers were not allowed to unduly influence pupils. Moreover, the applicants had not pleaded that the course as it had actually been taught in the school year 2006-2007 had been disrespectful of their religious beliefs.   Addressing the applicants’ complaint that despite the Christian tradition of Germany the Christian religion was not adequately represented in the ethics course, the Court noted that it fell within a State’s margin of discretion to decide whether or not a school curriculum was, in view of the country’s tradition, to dedicate more attention to a particular religion and whether ethics should be taught in separate classes, split on the basis of pupils’ religious beliefs, or in one common class. As regards the applicants’ claims that the ethics course was contrary to their religious belief, the Court observed that neither the School Act nor the curriculum gave priority to one particular belief. It was not possible to deduce from the Convention a right not to be exposed to convictions other than one’s own. Moreover, nothing impeded the first applicant from continuing to attend the Protestant religion course offered by the school.   The Court concluded that by introducing mandatory ethics classes, the Berlin authorities had not exceeded the margin of appreciation conferred by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and that they were therefore not obliged to allow a general exemption from the course. The fact that another German Land , Brandenburg, had decided to allow such an exemption made no difference to this conclusion. Accordingly the applicants’ complaints were manifestly ill-founded and hence inadmissible.     ***   The decision is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) or Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.